Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

chowderhead13 wrote:

FITZZ wrote:

chowderhead13 wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

chowderhead13 wrote:I have a 5'1" friend. He is one of the vilest, most swear filled people I've ever met. Yet when I tell people he's not the cute midget they make him out to be, they stand in shock.

How do I explain to women that no matter a man's height, he's going to out curse a sailor when he's in a bind?

Simply tell them that he suffer from LMS, and they'll nod their heads sadly in understanding.

Err... What?

LMS= Little Man Syndrome

AH.

You see, this "little man" plays Eldar. Quite fiercely. He also plays 'Nids. This is one of the manliest men I know, in fact. And women treat him like a human teddy bear. I have a lot of short friends, and they all seem to be very swear filled and, how do I put this, malevolent people. One of them watched me break my arm and they laughed. I laughed when he tripped, and a girl slapped me while two others went to check on him.

That's slowed. But that's what happens when you look manly.

I suppose you could chalk it up to female nurturing instincts.

Apparently. Mate its the natural order. Do not disturb the natural order or else gak will happen. Like gak you have never seen before.
That git got what he deserved by falling! Never laugh at a man's broken misery. Only if it is a break-up between two people you hate with a passion. then its gaking hilarious.
(Normal response by a teenager)
Ok heres the real version. Basically every popular or high topped Guy I know talks just like that. Replace all the gaks, gits, and add additional swear words and you got kids that I hate with a fiery passion? Ever meet one of these guy's or gals?
But apart from that not all of them are that bad its just the average dictionary for my generation. Hell we have stereotypes for everyone. And we orgainize others into groups and such according to how weird you are. And I had an agruement with someone the other day about normal people. And I said. "Normal people do not exist, because normal implies nothing ever good, bad, hurtful, different or no change occurs in their life. Everyday we change so we cannot be normal in any circumstances. You can't call yourself normal because that is self implied which makes it social weird and hence you are not normal."

Wikipedia wrote: In 2007, research by the University of Central Lancashire suggested that the Napoleon complex (described in terms of the theory that shorter men are more aggressive to dominate those who are taller than they are) may be a myth. The study discovered that short men (below 5'5" [1.65 m]) were less likely to lose their temper than men of average height. The experiment involved subjects dueling each other with sticks, with one subject deliberately rapping the other's knuckles. Heart monitors revealed that the taller men were more likely to lose their tempers and hit back. University of Central Lancashire lecturer Dr Mike Eslea commented that "when people see a short man being aggressive, they are likely to think it is due to his size, simply because that attribute is obvious and grabs their attention."[2]

Seems like the theory might be wrong. I'm just pointing it out because on other forums I've heard people, especially women, denounce short men that aren't cuddly and quiet to be LMSing, overcompensating, confidence-less wusses.

See and I thought terms like Small Man Syndrome or Small Penis Syndrome were just an askew way of labelling someone who has an inferiority complex. Yet some idiots at the University of Central Lancashire still found the need to prove it's literal conotations weren't true. Is it just me or do most scientists just seem to waste time for a living.

whatwhat wrote:See and I thought terms like Small Man Syndrome or Small Penis Syndrome were just an askew way of labelling someone who has an inferiority complex. Yet some idiots at the University of Central Lancashire still found the need to prove it's literal conotations weren't true. Is it just me or do most scientists just seem to waste time for a living.

Thats the ones that study human pyschology. The real scientists are the Earth Science people, which include astronomers, geologists, geographers, chemists and military scientists.

Asherian Command wrote:

whatwhat wrote:See and I thought terms like Small Man Syndrome or Small Penis Syndrome were just an askew way of labelling someone who has an inferiority complex. Yet some idiots at the University of Central Lancashire still found the need to prove it's literal conotations weren't true. Is it just me or do most scientists just seem to waste time for a living.

Thats the ones that study human pyschology. The real scientists are the Earth Science people, which include astronomers, geologists, geographers, chemists and military scientists.

Who unfortunately tend to be in the minority. Or at least their voice seems so small compared to the others; because the media care more about reporting Profesor Nutcase's study on 'how to make the best tasting sandwich' than they do about covering anything of actual substance, in more than a paragraph on the bottom of page 33.

Asherian Command wrote:

whatwhat wrote:See and I thought terms like Small Man Syndrome or Small Penis Syndrome were just an askew way of labelling someone who has an inferiority complex. Yet some idiots at the University of Central Lancashire still found the need to prove it's literal conotations weren't true. Is it just me or do most scientists just seem to waste time for a living.

Thats the ones that study human pyschology. The real scientists are the Earth Science people, which include astronomers, geologists, geographers, chemists and military scientists.

Yes, because human psychology, ie, figuring out why we do what we do and how our brains work isn't of value at all, but figuring out the meaning of the sounds crickets make is imperative.

Fafnir wrote:

Asherian Command wrote:

whatwhat wrote:See and I thought terms like Small Man Syndrome or Small Penis Syndrome were just an askew way of labelling someone who has an inferiority complex. Yet some idiots at the University of Central Lancashire still found the need to prove it's literal conotations weren't true. Is it just me or do most scientists just seem to waste time for a living.

Thats the ones that study human pyschology. The real scientists are the Earth Science people, which include astronomers, geologists, geographers, chemists and military scientists.

Yes, because human psychology, ie, figuring out why we do what we do and how our brains work isn't of value at all, but figuring out the meaning of the sounds crickets make is imperative.

Ugh, before you get into that argument can we just be clear that any significant research on human psychology is unlikely to be coming out of a tin pot university like UCLAN. Plus as I said the overall point of that research was dumb as it doesn't take a scientist to work out that not all small men have an inferiority complex and the idea that they do is a stereotype.

Whyfor is this thread already approaching sixty pages? Seems like it was at fifty yesterday morning.

whatwhat wrote:

Fafnir wrote:

Asherian Command wrote:

whatwhat wrote:See and I thought terms like Small Man Syndrome or Small Penis Syndrome were just an askew way of labelling someone who has an inferiority complex. Yet some idiots at the University of Central Lancashire still found the need to prove it's literal conotations weren't true. Is it just me or do most scientists just seem to waste time for a living.

Thats the ones that study human pyschology. The real scientists are the Earth Science people, which include astronomers, geologists, geographers, chemists and military scientists.

Yes, because human psychology, ie, figuring out why we do what we do and how our brains work isn't of value at all, but figuring out the meaning of the sounds crickets make is imperative.

Ugh, before you get into that argument can we just be clear that any significant research on human psychology is unlikely to be coming out of a tin pot university like UCLAN. Plus as I said the overall point of that research was dumb as it doesn't take a scientist to work out that not all small men have an inferiority complex and the idea that they do is a stereotype.

Oh like this by fox news?
http://www.myfoxla.com/dpp/news/offbeat/trolls-taking-their-toll-online-20110119

Melissia wrote:Whyfor is this thread already approaching sixty pages? Seems like it was at fifty yesterday morning.

Becuase swearing Midgit 40k players are fun, dammit!

I found myself suddenly cleaning and loading a gun, and usually this means someone has mentioned faux news as if somehow it is a reputable source.

Melissia wrote:Whyfor is this thread already approaching sixty pages? Seems like it was at fifty yesterday morning.

When we are at 5000 pages I'd say we might have covered about a fifth of the things people don't understand about their opposite gender.

Melissia wrote:I found myself suddenly cleaning and loading a gun, and usually this means someone has mentioned faux news as if somehow it is a reputable source.

I find myself thinking you never actually clicked the link itself before you said that.

Yes I did.

Last week, in fact, when someone in this thread linked to it.

Which also coincided with me cleaning and loading my gun.

Hrm.

FAUX news is a biased piece of gak. Big whoop. The bad part is that they claim to be "fair and unbiased". Of course, if you want your full dose of fox-bashing, as well as some propaganda attacking propaganda, just watch the documentary "Outfoxed".

Is is kind of sad that I immediately just type "gak", instead of the usual swear word?

Don't worry. Its fox news. You should see their anonymous crap. They fail. See people who claim to be the best at telling what a troll is fails. I really hate the fact that Fox news trys and gets into the gaming world and fails. Its not a source. Its an example of growing stupidity. I think I posted that link like a few weeks ago.

Melissia wrote:Yes I did.

Last week, in fact, when someone in this thread linked to it.

Which also coincided with me cleaning and loading my gun.

Hrm.

Oh really? What about the article "Internet trolls lurk in chat rooms" made you think he was mentioning "faux news as if somehow it is a reputable source."

Mostly, the fact that it's Fox news. It's a bullgak conservative propaganda machine. I mean for feth sakes they're still an agenda that Obama isn't an American citizen.

chowderhead13 wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

chowderhead13 wrote:I have a 5'1" friend. He is one of the vilest, most swear filled people I've ever met. Yet when I tell people he's not the cute midget they make him out to be, they stand in shock.

How do I explain to women that no matter a man's height, he's going to out curse a sailor when he's in a bind?

Simply tell them that he suffer from LMS, and they'll nod their heads sadly in understanding.

Err... What?

Ask your midget friend - he'll explain it to you.

So why bother listening to them? On the off chance that someone is actually able to speak a clear and good idea before O'reily cuts their mike or drowns them out with shouting, they spend the next few days muddying and obscuring their argument with baldface lies.

Melissia wrote:Mostly, the fact that it's Fox news. It's a bullgak conservative propaganda machine. I mean for feth sakes they're still an agenda that Obama isn't an American citizen.

Yeh, I agree. The point is I don't really think Asherian Command was attaching that much weight to it, considering the context he was talking when he linked it. As I see it he was using it as an askew way of suggesting trolling. Not putting all his faith in fox news.

Witzkatz wrote:

Wikipedia wrote: In 2007, research by the University of Central Lancashire suggested that the Napoleon complex (described in terms of the theory that shorter men are more aggressive to dominate those who are taller than they are) may be a myth. The study discovered that short men (below 5'5" [1.65 m]) were less likely to lose their temper than men of average height. The experiment involved subjects dueling each other with sticks, with one subject deliberately rapping the other's knuckles. Heart monitors revealed that the taller men were more likely to lose their tempers and hit back. University of Central Lancashire lecturer Dr Mike Eslea commented that "when people see a short man being aggressive, they are likely to think it is due to his size, simply because that attribute is obvious and grabs their attention."[2]

Seems like the theory might be wrong. I'm just pointing it out because on other forums I've heard people, especially women, denounce short men that aren't cuddly and quiet to be LMSing, overcompensating, confidence-less wusses.

I think it's a bad experiment.

In the experiment, the little man and big guy are *already* in physical conflict, so it's fight-or-flight time. Naturally, the big guy will slap the little guy down, because that's what's coded in his genes. The only way it would be better is to put a half-naked, pretty girl in the room. The big guy would probably hammer the small guy to impress the girl. Alpha dog growls, and the small dog tucks its tail.

But that's not really testing LMS. LMS is compensating for smallness by being verbally aggressive, *before* actual physical conflict starts, to avoid being physically dominated by the big guy, because big guys *will* use their size to their advantage once things turn physical. A good example of this is Spike Lee - he'll use the dozens to verbally rip you a new one, in lieu of a physical fight which he'd lose.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

whatwhat wrote:

Melissia wrote:Whyfor is this thread already approaching sixty pages? Seems like it was at fifty yesterday morning.

When we are at 5000 pages I'd say we might have covered about a fifth of the things people don't understand about their opposite gender.

I think it hit most of the good ones upfront:
- women are always cold for no good reason, but can't put on a sweater
- women leave the lights on, even if they're not in the room
- women talk a lot
- women complain a lot
- women expect men to understand there's a problem
- women don't understand that raising the toilet seat is a good thing

If I didn't have to deal with any of the above as problems, I'd be a happy man.

Hell, if I could pick just one to do away with, I'd be a hero to all men.

JohnHwangDD wrote:WALL OF TEXT.

You would be a hero to all of man kind.

JohnHwangDD wrote:- women don't understand that raising the toilet seat is a good thing

lmao

Just check before you sit if it's such a big deal, GLaDOS!

Melissia wrote:facepalm.jpg

What?

You don't want us to raise the toilet seat when we pee?

OK, we can stop doing that, but you're not going to like it...

This thread makes my head hurt...... ngggnnhhh threadache...

Asherian Command wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:WALL OF TEXT.

You would be a hero to all of man kind.

Your definition of WALL OF TEXT is woefully pathetic. I'm guessing you've never even read through one of Orlanth's monsters have you?